CHRISTINE E. DUNCAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the summary judgment for the employer must be reversed because the trial court did not have the benefit of controlling precedent established in recent cases.
A dairy-counter employee was injured when she slipped while mopping the floor. The employer had rejected the Florida Workmen's Compensation Law, meani…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fellow Servant Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff, a dairy-counter employee of the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., was injured when she slipped while mopping the floor of the store.. The defendant, employer, had rejected the provisions of the Florida Workmen’s Compensation Law; therefore, contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and the fellow servant rule were not available to it as a defense. See Fla.Stat., §§ 440.06, 440.11, F.S.A.; Hicks v. Kemp, Fla.1955, 79 So.2d 696.
The appellee’s answer denied negligence. After discovery and the filing of affidavits by the plaintiff and the defendant, the trial judge entered a summary final judgment for the defendant. This appeal is from that judgment.
The complaint charged the appellee, defendant, with negligence in failing to provide appellant with a reasonably safe place in which to work and in failing to instruct her as to a safe method of performing the duty assigned. It was ap-pellee’s position in moving for the summary judgment that there is .nothing in the record to establish its negligence. In opposition to the motion and in addition to the discovery matter, the plaintiff interposed the affidavit of an engineer-builder. According to plaintiff’s expert, the area behind the counter was not constructed and maintained in accordance with reasonably safe construction and engineering standards prevailing in Florida.
A review of the record convinces us that the summary final judgment must be *459reversed under the law as set forth in Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1960, 191 So.2d 40, and Visingardi v. Tirone, Fla.1966, 193 So.2d 601, opinion filed November 23, 1966.
The last cited opinions had not been published at the time of the entry of the judgment here appealed; therefore, the trial judge did not have the benefit of their guidance.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Duncan, 201 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1967)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 193 So. 2d 458.…
-
McKEE v. Greene, 360 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ctrine in this case. Therefore, they were liable to the plaintiff for any injuries sustained in her employment if they did not provide a safe place for her to work. This issue is one for a jury. See: Duncan v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 193 So. 2d 458 (Fla.3d DCA 1966). Therefore, the final judgment under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1966)
- Hicks v. Kemp, 79 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1955)